This is a great discussion, and an important one to have for Zero Books in particular. Very heartening to see the sometime home of left-accelerationism take a look at the water it’s been swimming in and really resituate itself to take a critical eye. Really shows a level of organizational and philosophical integrity, as a reader I really appreciate it.
Honestly, who is this book for because it costs $125 for its 188 pages. I'd like to read it, but very few people (outside academia) will be able to read it because of the price point. As it concerns Marx and Marxism, both sides will say Marx was either something like an ecomodernist or an ecosocialist. Marx condemned animal rights activists and advocated for the domination of nature; at the same time he understood that all economic activity relied on nature and that humans were a part of nature. Anyway, I get the sense that these guys lean more towards ecomodernists then ecosocialists or degrowthers. Would love to find out more if the book wasn't so expensive!
This is such a great episode these are some of the topics I base my Marxism on. I am very interested in the Promthean and Gaian debat.As a religious naturalist and I Marxist I see the issue as finding balance in the natural and material I also think the real question is the need to re-enchent the world. I think these discussions get to the heart of the philosophical divid with nature and humanity. A new framework is being built each time we take apart these unsolved questions of our age. I look forward to reading this book and becoming more familiar with this Marxist analysis of environmentalism and it's two camps. Also mythology is still useful and can be inspiring.
Frim and Fluss might do well to actually read the representatives of the ideas that they are criticizing, since what they claim about Prometheanism's supposed anti-humanism (at around 28:00-29:39) is overtly contradicted by contemporary left-Prometheans. The main proponent of Prometheanism (at least on the left) today is Ray Brassier. He wrote an essay a number of years back called "Prometheanism and Its Critics" in which he elaborates his position and its stakes. He is the reason people on the left use the term today. Brassier is a committed Marxist as well as humanist in exactly the terms laid out by Landon Frim in the time-stamp above. He recently gave a seminar on the Foreign Objekt RUclips channel (and will soon publish a text) entitled "The Human" in which he develops his understanding of humanism (a position he explicitly champions). In fact, all the neo-rationalists following from Brassier, many who consistently consider themselves Prometheans, would be considered humanist in the sense that Frim gives. Reza Negarestani (another Promethean and neo-rationalist) himself champions what he calls the 'inhuman' which he expressly says should not be conflated with anti-humanism (in "The Labor of the Inhuman" and elsewhere). He ties the understanding of reason and subjectivity to inhumanism in terms which strongly parallel those of Frim. Further, both Brassier and Negarestani, and pretty much everyone else associated with them, strongly reject the idea that nature is unintelligible. Both of the essays mentioned above are in the most influential anthology of Accelerationism, _#Accelerate_ , published by Urbanomic--it's not as if these are obscure texts which the authors might not have come across. If you're doing a project in which criticizing Prometheanism and Accelerationism is a major part, you cannot avoid reading it. At best, there is a tedious and insubstantial rhetorical disagreement between the authors and the Prometheans about vocabulary. At worst, the authors are willfully misrepresenting Prometheanism, and attributing to Prometheans views which they explicitly reject or contradict, to suit their purposes.
Thank you! I was getting worried I was the only one who even remembered leftist Prometheanism existed. I will say, I'm not gonna finish this podcast tho. Already too disappointed. I'll read what you put done above instead. Thank you, again.
Mentioned on novara page yesterday how lovelocks retraction was in some way similar to francis fukiyama retreat on the end of history. And are these two modes of thought not the very same 80' & 90's way on interpreting the world. Its a good talk youve had here, and i raised an eyebrow ay the mention of donna harraway and the immediate talk afterward regarding godesses and a possibly celtic european matriarchal social system. I like that sort of gibbergabber, chimes with the later work of david greaber rip. So much to unpack in this talk, and ive only got a quarter way through. Will update this post after another half. Edit . Half way through.. its just too much. So many things crossing over and overlapping. Not to say that it isnt all interconnected ('everything is connected'- kissenger =:^)) I think the focus regarding 'accelarationism' should be on those who are basically terrorists, setting fires (both real and metaphorically) to destabalise social systems and everything we take for granted. For me, a philosephy of accelationism isnt of any point. We can can look at every single person and divide them into differing camps of gia and promethious, which imo isnt helpful. Speiciesism? Im drawn toward what marx says regarding 'species being' ,but he doesnt describe what we should be, he just notes what we ought be from his view of what is, namely a better being . and also what donna harraway says about 'naturecultures' , that being the relationship weve had for millenia with other creatures and how those relationships inform eachother. Will? Will power? Power of the will? 'Do what you will' - Crowley (the most evil man in the world??) Cited by many conservstives when they want to erouse the masses. Im not a fan of this sort of rhetoric. Structure and agency. A sociological point of view. Which has its own language , and is better to be used in these sorts of discussions. That then allows us to bring Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens into the debate. Becks reflexive modernisation and risk society and Giddens structuration can help people understand how both structure and agency are better ways to see how much 'Will' one has or how much purchace one has in society. Will update after the whole thing.
Prometheus is the Greek Version of the god Loki. As a trickster, he should be seen differently than just a symbol of technology and acceleration. Rather he is a matrix of creative chaos and as a shape-shifter, she can birth a new world.
This is a great discussion, and an important one to have for Zero Books in particular. Very heartening to see the sometime home of left-accelerationism take a look at the water it’s been swimming in and really resituate itself to take a critical eye. Really shows a level of organizational and philosophical integrity, as a reader I really appreciate it.
Thanks! This is great, in french marxist circles we are having very similar discussions around these topics.
I like this trend towards introspection on the left.
Honestly, who is this book for because it costs $125 for its 188 pages. I'd like to read it, but very few people (outside academia) will be able to read it because of the price point.
As it concerns Marx and Marxism, both sides will say Marx was either something like an ecomodernist or an ecosocialist. Marx condemned animal rights activists and advocated for the domination of nature; at the same time he understood that all economic activity relied on nature and that humans were a part of nature.
Anyway, I get the sense that these guys lean more towards ecomodernists then ecosocialists or degrowthers. Would love to find out more if the book wasn't so expensive!
1:24:52 what text is being referred to here where Lukacs critiques Bloch?
Promethienism is essentially just transhumanism, but on a global perspective of everything. I wonder why Transhumanisms not mentioned
If you want to talk about Prometheus, talk to Jason Reza Jorjani.
You're back!
This is such a great episode these are some of the topics I base my Marxism on. I am very interested in the Promthean and Gaian debat.As a religious naturalist and I Marxist I see the issue as finding balance in the natural and material
I also think the real question is the need to re-enchent the world. I think these discussions get to the heart of the philosophical divid with nature and humanity.
A new framework is being built each time we take apart these unsolved questions of our age. I look forward to reading this book and becoming more familiar with this Marxist analysis of environmentalism and it's two camps. Also mythology is still useful and can be inspiring.
Very interesting discussion. More please
WOOOHOOO! Gonna relax with this
Frim and Fluss might do well to actually read the representatives of the ideas that they are criticizing, since what they claim about Prometheanism's supposed anti-humanism (at around 28:00-29:39) is overtly contradicted by contemporary left-Prometheans.
The main proponent of Prometheanism (at least on the left) today is Ray Brassier. He wrote an essay a number of years back called "Prometheanism and Its Critics" in which he elaborates his position and its stakes. He is the reason people on the left use the term today. Brassier is a committed Marxist as well as humanist in exactly the terms laid out by Landon Frim in the time-stamp above. He recently gave a seminar on the Foreign Objekt RUclips channel (and will soon publish a text) entitled "The Human" in which he develops his understanding of humanism (a position he explicitly champions). In fact, all the neo-rationalists following from Brassier, many who consistently consider themselves Prometheans, would be considered humanist in the sense that Frim gives.
Reza Negarestani (another Promethean and neo-rationalist) himself champions what he calls the 'inhuman' which he expressly says should not be conflated with anti-humanism (in "The Labor of the Inhuman" and elsewhere). He ties the understanding of reason and subjectivity to inhumanism in terms which strongly parallel those of Frim.
Further, both Brassier and Negarestani, and pretty much everyone else associated with them, strongly reject the idea that nature is unintelligible. Both of the essays mentioned above are in the most influential anthology of Accelerationism, _#Accelerate_ , published by Urbanomic--it's not as if these are obscure texts which the authors might not have come across. If you're doing a project in which criticizing Prometheanism and Accelerationism is a major part, you cannot avoid reading it. At best, there is a tedious and insubstantial rhetorical disagreement between the authors and the Prometheans about vocabulary. At worst, the authors are willfully misrepresenting Prometheanism, and attributing to Prometheans views which they explicitly reject or contradict, to suit their purposes.
Thank you! I was getting worried I was the only one who even remembered leftist Prometheanism existed. I will say, I'm not gonna finish this podcast tho. Already too disappointed. I'll read what you put done above instead. Thank you, again.
They address Brassier and Negarestani around the 59:00 min. mark.
I apologize in advance for not understanding, but how is ego-pessimism any different than nihilism?
Mentioned on novara page yesterday how lovelocks retraction was in some way similar to francis fukiyama retreat on the end of history. And are these two modes of thought not the very same 80' & 90's way on interpreting the world.
Its a good talk youve had here, and i raised an eyebrow ay the mention of donna harraway and the immediate talk afterward regarding godesses and a possibly celtic european matriarchal social system. I like that sort of gibbergabber, chimes with the later work of david greaber rip.
So much to unpack in this talk, and ive only got a quarter way through. Will update this post after another half.
Edit . Half way through.. its just too much. So many things crossing over and overlapping. Not to say that it isnt all interconnected ('everything is connected'- kissenger =:^))
I think the focus regarding 'accelarationism' should be on those who are basically terrorists, setting fires (both real and metaphorically) to destabalise social systems and everything we take for granted.
For me, a philosephy of accelationism isnt of any point. We can can look at every single person and divide them into differing camps of gia and promethious, which imo isnt helpful.
Speiciesism? Im drawn toward what marx says regarding 'species being' ,but he doesnt describe what we should be, he just notes what we ought be from his view of what is, namely a better being . and also what donna harraway says about 'naturecultures' , that being the relationship weve had for millenia with other creatures and how those relationships inform eachother.
Will? Will power? Power of the will?
'Do what you will' - Crowley (the most evil man in the world??)
Cited by many conservstives when they want to erouse the masses. Im not a fan of this sort of rhetoric.
Structure and agency. A sociological point of view. Which has its own language , and is better to be used in these sorts of discussions. That then allows us to bring Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens into the debate. Becks reflexive modernisation and risk society and Giddens structuration can help people understand how both structure and agency are better ways to see how much 'Will' one has or how much purchace one has in society.
Will update after the whole thing.
very good
Prometheus is the Greek Version of the god Loki. As a trickster, he should be seen differently than just a symbol of technology and acceleration. Rather he is a matrix of creative chaos and as a shape-shifter, she can birth a new world.
He also defied the king of the gods in favor of helping humanity (his creation) beyond a trickster, and inventor, he's also a liberator.
pog
is Nietzsche really as objectionable as Nick Land?